933 So. 2d 754 - State v. Brisco’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the district attorney has entire charge and control of every criminal prosecution instituted or pending in his district, and determines whom, when, and how he shall prosecute.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 997 So. 2d 759 - State v. SLD · 966 So. 2d 127 - State v. Montgomery

2. “The district attorney has broad discretion in both the institution and handling of criminal prosecutions. LSA-Const. art. V, § 26 (B); LSA-R.S. 16:1(B) ; State v. Walker , 2000-0334, p. 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/22/00), 775 So.2d 663 , 666, writ denied , 01-0235 (La. 12/07/01), 803 So.2d 23 . When conduct is made criminal under a section of the revised statutes and is also criminal according to some special statute, prosecution may proceed under either provision, at the discretion of the district attorney. LSA-R.S. 14:4(2). Even when the penalty under a general criminal provision differs from that established in a special provision, the district attorney has the discretion to proceed under either provision. See State v. Juluke , 374 So.2d 1259 , 1260 (La.1979) ; State v. Smith , 597 So.2d 1151 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied 599 So.2d 311 (La.1992). A district attorney has great discretionary power to file a habitual offender bill under LSA-R.S. 15:529.1(D), just as he has the initial power to prosecute "whom, when, and how" he chooses. State v. Dorthey , 623 So.2d at 1279 . For example, the use of the habitual offender laws by the district attorney simply provides an ancillary sentencing factor designed to serve important and legitimate societal purposes. State v. Orange , 02-0711 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/11/03) , 845 So.2d 570 , writs denied , 03-1352 (La. 5/21/04), 874 So.2d 161 , 03-2195 (La. 7/2/04), 877 So.2d 137 . Just as the discretion to charge a defendant under the habitual offen”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Young

3. “The district attorney has broad discretion in both the institution and handling of criminal prosecutions. LSA-Const. art. V, § 26(B), LSA-R.S. 16:1(B); State v. Walker , XXXX-XXXX, p. 4 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/22/00), 775 So.2d 663, 666 , writ denied, 01-0235 (La.12/07/01), 803 So.2d 23 . When conduct is made criminal under a section of the revised statutes and is also criminal according to some special statute, prosecution may proceed under either provision, at the discretion of the district attorney. LSA-R.S. 14:4(2). Even when the penalty under a general criminal provision differs from that established in a special provision, the district attorney has the discretion to proceed under either provision. See State v. Juluke, 374 So.2d 1259, 1260 (La.1979); State v. Smith, 597 So.2d 1151 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 599 So.2d 311 (La.1992).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 940 So. 2d 45 - State v. Ruffins